What findings did CAMAudit surface in the Clorox Company case?

CAMAudit flagged 1 finding with an apparent overcharge of $42,875. Each finding cites the specific detection rule, dollar amount, and the lease provision that grounds the dispute.

Can my firm reproduce these findings on a live client engagement?

Yes. CAMAudit applies the same CAM forensic detection rules to any lease and reconciliation your firm uploads. Partner firms receive findings in under 15 minutes and white-label branded report delivery for each completed audit.

Is Office a common property type for CAM audit engagements?

CAMAudit handles all commercial property types: retail, office, industrial, mixed-use, and specialty. The detection rules apply wherever a tenant pays CAM or operating expenses under a lease with specific definitions, caps, or exclusion lists.

What is a correction package and does CAMAudit generate one?

A correction draft is a factual starting point that specifies each overcharge by rule, dollar amount, and lease provision. CAMAudit generates a draft grounded in the specific audit findings for advisor and counsel review.

Public-record case study

Clorox Park Center Oakland CA: pro-rata share overcharge case study

Name: Clorox Park Center Oakland CA: pro-rata share overcharge case study structured case-study facts
Creator: CAMAudit
Published: 2026-03-19

A public-record office lease case study showing $42,875 in pro-rata share overcharges: landlord applied 15.75% instead of the lease-specified 14.00%.

Clorox Company2021 statementNNN leaseOffice

Statement applied 15.75% pro-rata share.

$2,450,000 operating expense base × 1.75% discrepancy = $42,875 overcharge.

What happened

Clorox's lease at Park Center Oakland specifies a fixed 14.00% pro-rata share (28,000 SF / 200,000 SF). The 2021 reconciliation applied 15.75% (31,500 SF / 200,000 SF). The 1.75-point discrepancy, applied to $2,450,000 in operating expenses, produced a $42,875 overcharge, the basis of the 2022 Alameda County action.

Findings from the pipeline

Rule 4: Pro-Rata Share Error

high confidence

$42,875

Statement applies 15.7500% pro-rata share but lease specifies 14.0000%, resulting in an estimated overcharge of $42,875 Lease specifies a fixed share with no adjustment language.

Lease evidence

Tenant's Proportionate Share: 28,000 RSF / 200,000 RSF = 14.00%. Exhibit 1, Section 3.2.

Exhibit 1, Section 3.2, page 4

Math proof

lease_share=0.14, stmt_share=0.1575, difference=0.0175, total_opex=2450000.00, overcharge=42875.00

Lease evidence

Pro-rata share fixed at 14.00% (28,000 SF / 200,000 SF).
No subject-to-adjustment language.

Why this matters for your firm

Office tenants with large RSF footprints face disproportionate overcharges from pro-rata share errors because the operating expense base is large. A $2.4 million CAM pool amplifies even small percentage errors into five-figure overcharges.

Correction package excerpt

Request for Cooperative Review of Certain Line Items. The automated review flagged a pro-rata share discrepancy of $42,875 : statement applied 15.75% versus the lease-specified 14.00%.

Detection guide

Pro-rata share error guide

Frequently Asked Questions

Run these same detection rules on your client engagements

Upload a client lease and reconciliation. CAMAudit applies the same rule set used in this case study and delivers findings in under 15 minutes, with white-label report delivery under your firm brand.

Apply for partner access

Public-record note

This page summarizes public-record documents and CAMAudit output for educational and marketing purposes. It does not imply endorsement by Clorox Company or any third party. Readers should review the underlying lease, statement, and dispute timeline for their own facts.